The Scandal of the Icon

Kissing Icons is a Proclamation of Faith

In 2022-23, I did a deep dive into the text of the 7^th Ecumenical Council. This council focused on the theology of Icon — Image — in the Christian faith. Icon is deeply and intrinsically tied to Incarnation. The product of this study was an article I wrote in March of 2023 for the Sunday of the Triumph of Orthodoxy. I thought the topic was fitting.

To my surprise, this article became the most fiercely contested article I’ve ever written. I didn’t expect that. Quite literally, a group was organised to oppose the article. A final goal was to have me remove the article from publication, and indeed, delete all my writings online. I was graciously added to an email group for this end. The group kindly committed to “getting him away from his cult and let’s lovingly walk through what he is and has been doing and keep his feet to the fire until he gets it or gets out.” It was going to be a grand and loving time. So warm and fuzzy and full of Christian generosity. Trust me, at that time, the group seemed to take particular delight in the burning of a brother. It’s from such experiences that the old adage, “with friends like these who needs enemies,” was born.

The article was taken as a public and personal attack: “It occurred to me that you [members of the group] deserve to be aware of the public accusations indirectly levied against ‘you.’” The woes of “online Orthodoxy” were elaborated upon, which is a topic in and of itself. The article was labelled “divisive,” “spreading confusion,” and “condemning others.” The dangers of “over correctness” and “zealotry” were presented. The article was framed as harsh and unbending. We should just pursue Christ, after all, and not talk about divisive issues like conspiracy theories and scandals. We need to just love and not “pursue our own opinions.” The group lamented, “This is embarrassing, silly, and hardly worth a response, but you [the person leading the group] ask for one. Poor Priest Zechariah. Honestly, my main concern is for you [me, as in Pr. Zechariah]. I love and respect you so much, and am sorry that this kind of nonsense occupies any of your remaining energy.”

It was interesting to me how the veneration of icons had now become a topic of nonsense. But such a strong reaction to nonsense! When I requested a direct rebuttal to the article in question, instead of emotional appeals, very little was given. One of the closest concerns relating to the article directly, that was not an emotional appeal to how bad the secret motives of the author are, was, You do realize that a decision not to kiss an icon -- or an inability to kiss it -- is not the same thing as a refusal to kiss any icons, right? Or are you trying to make the case that the dome icons in parishes cannot be venerated without climbing a ladder to reach them?

The first point is beneficial to note: the inability to kiss an icon is not the same as refusal. So I think it’s helpful to take note of it here. The second point wandered into an argument reductio ad absurdum. Such was never a point of the article.

I finally called the person heading up the email group and asked directly, “What is the core issue?” It had been hinted that the article would be submitted to someone (or ones) with “theological” credentials for review and possible rebuttal. I had also submitted the article to five other priests whom I trusted for review and criticism, but none reacted the way this group did. These men were not just sounding boards; I knew that they would be honest in a true spirit of Christian brotherhood. They all found the article of benefit. I never heard if the people with theological credentials ever reviewed the article.

In the course of the conversation, it seemed to boil down to Covid directives. I directly asked the person, “If I wrote this before Covid, it’d be white noise. No one, then, would think twice about it?” “Correct,” was the response. Thus, in light of Covid directives, my article was “divisive.” “Did I write anything theologically wrong?” “No.” The person agreed that the article was technically correct in its information. The core issue was that the article contradicted certain Covid directives, and those who followed them could take it as condemning them. In light of that, the article was wrong. Basically, it was wrong and divisive to write anything that would cause anyone to question the directives. Certain directives had directly forbidden the physical kissing of icons. Moreover, the article was an act of disobedience. The admission was given verbally, and to some degree in writing, the facilitator wrote, “1) I actually was not at all convicted that I/we violated the canons of the Council. I was responding to the implications of the article in their present context of post-covid… That it clearly implies that those who followed the mandates violated the Council. 2) It is a valid response: “Speak to the content of the article itself, not its interpreted implications” [my constant request] (i.e. as written prior to 2019). To that end, I submitted the article to two seminary professors, as if I myself wrote it, asking for “peer review”.

When I originally penned the article, I did so with the simple intent to investigate what the 7^th Council taught on the veneration of icons. I then hoped, as much as possible, to present my findings in an unbiased manner. I firmly believed that an interaction and contemplation of the information itself would be helpful. I did not write the article starting from the viewpoint of, “I’ll prove them wrong!” I can say this with all honesty. I honestly wanted to know for myself, and then share with others, what an Orthodox Council taught on the matter of icon veneration. After all, the Councils were not private events, nor personal opinions. I underestimated the post-Covid environment. Although my driving purpose was not “Covid directives,” somehow it became that issue with certain sectors.

Although at that time, the events of Covid were subsiding, the effects of Covid mentalities were not. These mentalities are not simply based on Covid but also indicate something generally deeper. These effects continue to influence things today, even after the initiating event has faded a bit into the past.

It was sad for me to see how the environment and spirit of Covidism wanted no questioning, even if those questions are based on Orthodox Tradition. I had to work through my own struggles after this event. I was wounded by these brothers, but I also had an opportunity to strive to forgive. It was a very trying situation. I touch upon it all as a method of reflection, and the events surrounding the article. I hope we can all learn.

As I pondered the whole experience, it eventually led to another article that I have also re-posted on Substack called “A Disturber of the Peace.” In 2023, I was taken aback at the lack of desire for authentic discussion of the important topics; rather, the main thrust became to paint the presenter of said objectionable topics, in this particular case, myself, as questionable in motive and spiritual stability. I also observed this tactic being used against other people. It’s interesting because typically, a main appeal of opposing groups is, “You are judgmental and have no love!” Yet, then one is judged and condemned freely by them, as if they see all the inner workings of the heart. Seems a bit self-defeating and contradictory. Constructing narratives and then working overtime to make sure those narratives hold the day, even at the expense of people and authentic information, is always a dangerous path.

Today, I’m thankful for everything the Lord permitted to happen. I learned a lot through the whole experience. I wish everyone who was part of the debacle many blessings in the Lord. It’s about three years since I first published this article with the original title of “You May Not, Not Kiss Icons.” I offer it again for the Feast of the Triumph of Orthodoxy, slightly updated and modified. It’s that old scandalmonger in me! The original unmodified version may still be found on my blog, The Inkless Pen.

For Orthodox Christians, what does it mean to properly venerate an icon?

Are there necessary physical actions of Orthodox when venerating an icon?

Can a person simply venerate it in his heart and forego outward physical greetings?

Many people are already familiar with the theological teaching behind the use of icons, as proclaimed especially in the writings of Ss. John of Damascus and Theodore the Studite. A little while ago, I began seeking to find if there is a proclaimed teaching and tradition of praxis, the question of how we properly and physically manifest the theology of icons. For, I mused, surely there is a “right praxis” in the veneration of icons, as there is a “right theology.” Is the practice of venerating an icon negotiable, or is it nonnegotiable together with the theology?

These and other questions have been raised in my mind through various circumstances. In a pursuit for understanding, I found in English the complete Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (787), also known as the Seventh Ecumenical Council.¹ All the quotes in this article are provided from this book. It seemed fitting to write a small article that briefly summarises my findings during the first week of Great Lent and the Sunday of the “Triumph of Orthodoxy.”

The 7^th Council convened in response to the heresy of Iconoclasm. This heresy taught that icons were idolatry. It firmly opposed the veneration of icons as idolatrous and scandalous.

From this vast Acts, which covers the seven sessions of the Council, I focus mainly on the seventh session and the proclamation of the Horos from the Council. I will also draw from two letters by St. Tarasius of Constantinople, which are included in the corpus of the writings from the Council.

From these, it should be clear to the reader that the Council insists upon two mutually interdependent actions in relation to icons – veneration and greeting. When it decreed proper veneration and greeting, it also provided very concrete instructions and requirements. It also indivisibly unites proper veneration to proper theology. I believe this will be made clear in the direct quotes that I provide below.

In the Horos of the Council, the holy Fathers first of all truly affirm that they are proclaiming only that which is in accord with the Holy Faith, “We preserve without innovation all the traditions of the church that have been laid down for us whether written or unwritten. One of these is reproduction in painting images, as something that is in harmony with the narration of the gospel message for the confirming of the real and in no way phantasmal incarnation of God the Word, and which serves us by conferring the same benefit. For these two things provide indisputable proof of each other and give expression to each other” (pg. 564). They clearly proclaim it is the Christian Tradition to make holy icons. They further confirm that it is the true Christian way to adorn churches with holy icons, “These things being so, we, travelling the royal road, following the teaching of our holy fathers that speaks of God and [we also follow] the tradition of the catholic church, for we recognize this to be of the Holy Spirit that dwells within her. We therefore decree with all care and precision that venerable and holy images, made in colours or mosaics or other fitting materials, in the same way as the figure of the honourable and like-giving cross, are to be dedicated in the holy churches of God” (pg. 564-565).

Having proclaimed firmly the evident Christian practice of making icons and using icons in the holy churches of God, they begin to elaborate upon the manner in which Christians should relate to them, “They [ie. icons, my note] are to be accorded greeting and the veneration of honour, not indeed the true worship corresponding to our faith, which pertains to the divine nature alone, but in the same way as this is accorded to the figure of the honourable and life-giving cross, to the holy angels, and other sacred offerings. In their honour an offering of incensation and lights is to be made, in accordance with the pious custom of the men of old. For the honour paid to the image passes over to the prototype, and whoever venerates the image venerates in it the hypostasis of the one who is represented” (pg 565). The distinction between veneration and true worship is made clear. Christians do not worship icons; rather, they offer them a veneration of honor. Here, the pious custom of censing icons and lighting lamps and candles before them is confirmed as true Christian practice, and conversely, the refusal to do so is an un-Christian practice; a summary of the theological reality is reiterated. Here, two important words are also used that are vital for understanding Orthodox Christian praxis towards icons – greeting and veneration.

A footnote for this passage reads, “’ Greeting and the veneration of honour’. These words refer to something quite concrete: kisses and a prostration or a deep bow. This is here contrasted to the ‘true worship (lateria) reserved to God alone’” (Ibid, footnote 58). It is revealed that the Fathers of the Council intend to convey to Christians a concrete and proper way, manner, by which to venerate icons. The Christian way. This way includes vital physical actions – kisses and a prostration or a deep bow. These actions are inseparable from the totality of veneration of icons, as will be made even clearer by the following excerpts.

St. Tarasius expounds upon “greeting and veneration” in his letter to the Byzantine Emperors at the time of the Council, Constantine and Irene. He first proclaims that the Council has only followed what is clear Christian practice, “We have expressed and proclaimed the truth in unison, that the sacred images of our Lord Jesus, in that he became a complete human being, are to be fully accepted, as is every depiction of the gospel stories, and also [the images] of our immaculate Lady the holy Theotokos and the holy angels … and all the saints … As God’s holy church received from the beginning, and as was laid down in law by both the holy originators of our teaching and our inspired fathers who succeeded them – and that these are to be venerated (προσκυνειν), that is, greeted (ασπαζεσθαι)” (pg. 582-583). He clearly unites and unifies as one the theology of the icon and the proper Christian praxis in relation to it. The praxis is a manifestation of the theological reality, and a major alteration of the praxis would imply a degradation of theology.

St. Tarasius further elaborates on the vital subject and praxis of veneration, “These two are the same [ie. veneration and greeting, my note], for κυνειν in the ancient Greek language means ‘greet’ and ‘kiss,’ and the addition of προσ adds an intensity of love; as in the case of … κυρω and προσκυρω, κύνω and προσκυνώ express a greeting and extended kiss. For what someone kisses he also venerates, and what he venerates he certainly also kisses, as is witnessed by our human relationships and intercourse with friends which involve both these things” (pg. 583). In the Greek words themselves, which are translated into English as “greeting and veneration,” a very physical manner and reality by which Christians venerate icons is expressed. Implicit in veneration is the very act of kissing together with bows (or prostrations), as St. Tarasius makes very clear. In proper human relationships, kisses are clearly a manifestation of love. If we love the Lord and His saints, we kiss them. The Greek word for “veneration” – “proskonesis” – expresses in itself the concrete action of “a greeting and extended kiss.” It is physical and tangible, as St. Tarasius instructs. It is not simply confined to inward disposition, which is an aspect of veneration, but it equally includes a visible and very distinct physical manner of greeting. The concrete action of kissing is clearly tied to the essential totality and actions of veneration and greeting. To the extent that one might say, to venerate means to kiss an icon. We see this very spiritual reality related in the Scriptures when St. Paul says, “If you confess with your mouth and believe with your heart” (cf. Rom. 10:9-10).

Referencing the Holy Cross, St. Tarasius makes another example and clearly calls Christian to touch holy icons with their lips, which is expressly a vital part of “greeting,” “Again, when we greet the life-giving cross, we all chant in unison, ‘We venerate your cross, O Lord’ and ‘We venerate the spear that pierced the life-giving side of your goodness.’ This manifestly both is and is called ‘greeting’, as is shown by our touching them with our lips” (pg. 584). We show forth and confirm our proclamation of veneration through the touching of holy things with our lips. That which we believe in the heart we confess with the mouth.

Further, in his letter to the clergy of Constantinople, St Tarasius calls “greeting and veneration” one and the same, which seems to indicate that they cannot be synthetically separated and one cannot be offered without the other. To venerate means to greet with a kiss. “We, therefore, following the laws of our fathers and having received grace from the one Spirit, have kept all that pertains to the church free of innovation and diminution, according to the tradition of the holy six ecumenical councils; whatever they allowed to be honoured in the catholic church we receive without dispute. This includes, as we have said, the making of images. To these we assign the veneration of honour and greeting – for both are the same” (pg. 589-590).

According to Christian teaching honor and greeting are the same; to diminish one is to detract from the other. St. Tarasios is simply reiterating and teaching that the Seventh Ecumenical Council already made clear. In the Acts of the Sixth Session, we find it written, “For everything dedicated to the memory of God is acceptable to him. Those who place themselves outside this tradition, which is shared by all those who have genuinely received sonship in the catholic church, are bastards and not sons. Let us therefore perceive that it is right and excellent for sacred images to be dedicated in the church and [for people] to be spiritually raised up by them to the memory of their archtypes, and for these because of their honourable status to be kissed and embraced and accorded the veneration that is their due, whether one prefers to give this the name of salutation or veneration. For the two are the same ...” (pg 544). Veneration and proper greeting are the same thing, although two components, they are a unified action. The act of veneration is “due” to the icons, thus one might say that proper veneration is a Christian duty. The Council makes clear that the believer is spiritually raised up to the archetypes and because of this absolute spiritual truth, a specific and concrete manner of greeting and veneration is commanded – icons are to be kissed and embraced, which embrace seems to be shown in bows and or prostrations. Thus, tied to the indisputable and non-negotiable Christian theology of the icon is an equally vital and unalterable praxis of veneration.

Again, the footnotes highlight the integral nature of “greeting/salutation” (ασπάζομαι) with the action of kissing, “The word ασπασμός the noun from ασπάζομαι, which in relation to images can have the specific meaning of kissing them” (Ibid, footnote 562).

The holistic vision of the Fathers of the Council between the spiritual reality and the physical manner of venerating icons is made very clear when they proclaim, “Those who say that depictions in images should serve simply as a reminder and should not be kissed, accepting the former but rejecting the latter, show themselves to be half-wicked and falsely true, acknowledging the truth in one respect but denigrating it in another. Alas the folly!” (pg 545-546). The synthetic separation of veneration with honor and greeting is not allowed in the theology of the Council. It is not enough simply to accept that icons are true and proper for use in churches; a person must also equally and properly venerate and greet them in the church. It is clear as day that theology and praxis are inseparable. In a proper Christian setting, there is not a veneration of the heart detached from the veneration of the lips, as the Council outlines. The Fathers call it folly to accept in principle icons and then not to maintain and defend proper veneration, which presumes a physical greeting, very specifically bows and a kiss.

I found no exclusions given by the Council regarding if and when icons should not be venerated (with bows and a kiss); rather, it seems very certain that the Council instructs and mandates all Christians to always equally uphold the theology of icons and the very specifically outlined mode of their veneration. Thus, as icons must always be accepted in the church, so they must always and without exclusion be properly venerated as instructed and decreed by the Council. Veneration applies to those icons within the scope of physical possibility for veneration; icons in domes, for example, are not expected to be venerated by the faithful as prescribed. Typically, Orthodox churches have specific icons set out for primary veneration, but this doesn’t preclude the veneration of other icons as moved by the faithful.

The vast spiritual importance of proper veneration is exemplified in a series of “anathemas” proclaimed by the Seventh Council at the end of the Horos, two of which relate very directly to the physical aspect of veneration – kissing. “The holy council exclaimed: ‘We all believe accordingly, we all hold the same, we have all signed in accord. This is the faith of the apostles, this is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the orthodox, this is the faith that has sustained the world. Believing in one God, to be praised in Trinity, we kiss the honourable images. May those who do not hold accordingly be anathema! May those who do not believe accordingly be driven far away from the church! … We accept the sacred images. We subject those who do not believe accordingly to anathema. To those who apply to the sacred images the sayings in divine scriptures against idols anathema! To those who do not kiss the holy and venerable images anathema! To those who call the sacred images idols anathema! … If anyone does not accept the gospel narratives when painted, anathema! If anyone does not kiss them as being in the name of the Lord and his saints, anathema!” (ibid. pg. 577-578).

The very act of venerating icons – kissing and embracing – is a theological proclamation. It’s an act of confession: icons are holy and that they are mystically connected to the person (hypostasis) of the one we venerate through them. It is a confession that the holy things convey to us only that which is holy and blessed. For, as the person our Lord Jesus Christ, and all His saints, would never convey anything evil to us, so it is impossible for icons to do so. It is thus vital to always and at all times maintain proper physical veneration; it seems clear that the Horos of the Seventh Council patently instructs Christians to always venerate icons as they have been instructed from times of old. It is not enough to “confess in the heart” that icons are venerable, but one must “make a confession with the mouth” through proper veneration – a kiss with the lips. The two cannot, as the Council teaches, be separated in any way; this it makes clear is the “royal road of the Fathers.”

Because it is of continual profit for us as Orthodox Christians to be fed by the words of the holy Fathers, I will end this article with one last quote from the Horos of the Seventh Council. Every Orthodox Christian is called to the lofty standard of the Faith as proclaimed in the consensus of the Body of Christ. This standard is the governing guide for all equally. May we hold fast to the Faith that has been entrusted to us. May we not estrange ourselves from Christ our Lord.

“As for those, therefore, who have the presumption to think or teach otherwise, or like the accursed heretics to spurn the traditions of the church and concoct some innovation, or to reject any of the things dedicated to the church – gospel books or figures of the cross or painted images or the relics of a martyr – or perversely and wickedly to intend to subvert any of the lawful traditions of the catholic church, or indeed to degrade to common use any sacred vessels or holy monasteries, we prescribe that if they be bishops of clerics they are to be deposed, while if they are monks or laymen they are to be excommunicated” (pg. 566).

The world will never stop bringing complicated issues to the doors of the Church and the Christian Faithful. The wrestling with these issues is what the Church does, but always from the foundation of Truth. We must, as the Scriptures instruct, “Be ready always to give an answer to every man who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear” (1 Pet. 3:15). I hope that, starting in my own heart, we will be ready and willing to examine the issues of the day in light of the truth of Revelation. When it becomes clear that something may be out of harmony with this Revelation, I hope that we all can attune ourselves to it. In this article, I’ve presented what I believe to be a true and authentic recap of the teaching on the veneration of icons, as set forth by the 7^th Council. This is the faith handed down to us as Orthodox Christians. I hope we never forget it. May the Lord help us.

1The Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (787), Translated with notes and an introduction by Richard Price. Liverpool University Press, 2020.